Social capital strengthens community bonding and thus, they plan the strategy and try to implement in collaboration with each other. Social capital also helps to leverage policy perspectives.

Yes, adaptation is a dynamic process; humans and other life forms have faced the climate changes in the past and adapted as per the situation demands.

Regards

Thank you Kenneth. I Think there is differences between this time and pas adaptation.

A quite common definition of social capital on the internet is similar to the following. Social capital consists of both economic and cultural capital (i.e., social asset capital). In that approach, social capital is viewed as a set of social networks or relationships that involve economic and cultural transactions (where the transactions can also be used to define the scope of a social capital network). Theoretically, in a network with strong social capital ties, both economic and cultural exchanges or transactions would include a high level of trust in others, cooperation and reciprocity. In the ideal version, actors in the economic and cultural markets produce "goods" (which can be commodities, services, and public services) for the common good rather than for individual gain.

In theory, then, the strength of social capital networks could be used to describe the conditions in a set of exchange relationships surrounding a public issue such as climate change, and mapping social networks could help explain the outcomes of public issue/policy making by mapping the strength/scope of social capital relationships tied to social actors as groups and perhaps also as individuals.

You might also consider referring to contested terrain/contested illness literature and theory, since these view set out approaches for assessing the interests and resources of competing groups in a political/legal/social contest.

There really wasn't very much literature on global cooling.

There is a useful study addressing this issue: Peterson, Thomas; Connolley, William; Fleck, John (September 2008). The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. American Meteorological Society. 89 (9): 1325–1337.

By the late 1970s when the popular media captured on the idea of global cooling and deemed that argument headline worthy, the majority of scientific papers on climate change were suggesting warming rather than cooling (see Peterson et al cited above, which found that of the 71 papers published on climate change from 1965 through 1979, 7 [9.86%] suggested cooling; 61.97% predicted warming; and the remaining 28.17% reached no conclusion). Moreover, based on the difference between the scientific literature and the suggestion of global cooling taken up in the media, the World Meteorological Organization issued a statement (a reprint of the article is here: https://enthusiasmscepticismscience.wordpress.com/h-h-lamb/1976_june_22_times_worldstemperaturelikelytorise/) to the media that the current scientific evidence in 1976 that stated "significant rises in global temperature are probable over the next century..."

So, in this example, one could say newspapers and magazines (Time magazine, for example, published an issue in April 1977 with a cover depicting a penguin walking on ice with the bold "headline" that read "How to Survive the Coming Ice Age"), which have some level of established social capital (some level of trust in news-reporting), attempted to play up the cooling findings in a minor portion of the scientific literature. Since newspapers were not, at the same time, reporting that most of the literature was reporting concern about a future warming trend, newspaper publishers/editors were using their social capital to, one could say, manipulate public opinion. Why? Who knows....

In any event, the "famous" scientific paper, which was in part at the center of the cooling claim, was also being mis-represented, (http://science.sciencemag.org/content/173/3992/138). That paper suggested that cooling might result from air pollution related to aerosols if aerosol pollution levels increased by a factor of 4. One of the authors of that article, Stephen Schneider, later argued that he had mis-calculated/over-stated the cooling effect, and underestimated the heating effect of CO-2 by a factor of 3 (see his book, Stephen H. Schneider and Lynne E. Mesirow, The Genesis Strategy: Climate and Global Survival, Plenum, April 1976). Thereafter, as is well known, Schneider published numerous manuscripts on climate change and global warming. Later, Schneider also used his social capital, appearing on TV talk shows and in documentaries to discuss climate change to provide a scientific view.

Specify then global cooling was a concern, and cite a study. I cited a study showing that there were, in the period from 1965-1979 -- or over a 15 year period -- 71 scholarly articles published on climate change, AND ONLY 7 (SEVEN) were about global cooling. So is there some academic literature you claim is being left out?

I'm not sure what Stephen Schneider's older views have to do with the issue raised, but, in 1996, Schneider wrote " “I do (somewhat reluctantly) agree that study of geoengineering potential is probably needed […], given our growing inadvertent impact on the planet and the possibility that other alternatives are worse.” (Schneider 1996, pp. 300f; Schneider SH (1996) Geoengineering: could or should we do it? Clim Chang 33(3):291–302).

My comments on the global cooling relate only to the literature as I stated above, from 1965-1979. I gave specific dates, and showed a summary of the literature published during that time period about FUTURE cooling or warming. Why are you trying to generalize beyond the point I have made?

In the 1970s, the concern with cooling which, as I have reviewed above, was created by a MINORITY of scientific papers (9.86% of the published work on climate change during the period noted above). Again, as I demonstrated, the press promoted the minority view. So, the minority view was popularized and no actions was taken related to the majority view in the scientific literature that the emergent issue was warming, not cooling. You have not produced any evidence that this is an inappropriate view. Rather, you try and side-track the discussion into other issue. As I have noted before, I am not that easily distracted from the point, or by those kinds of tactics.

That seems to be the same thing that continues to happen. There is a minority view about climate change, and that view causes inaction. So, while can say societies could have been addressing climate change much earlier, limiting emissions two decades before anyone tried, we find ourselves once again fighting against the minority view in science.

As for costs, as I have shown in other posts replying to similar comments you have made, the costs of doing nothing outweigh the costs of acting. (see my replies in the post

"How does CarbFix turns a power plant's CO2 emissions into Basalts?, where I provide extensive details).

Dr.Francois - Good submission; some positive aspects of social capital. Thanks and regards